If so, it is reasonable to assume that the aliens create the simulation based on their daily-life experiences. Thus, the problems faced by the beings in the simulation should be very similar to those faced by the aliens in their real life.

Just my "silly" thought.

Actually I wasn't even referring to aliens or matrix AI or w/e. I was referring to the "creator" (original point) making this world. Such Creator lives in a Universe outside our own which probably doesn't have the same laws.

You ask why do I assume this? Well like I said, our video games are a great analogy. We, as their creator, live outside of their Universe. Our Universe functions with particles and fields, their Universe functions with vertices, triangles, voxels and such. Completely separate laws of physics.

So what's so weird to assume we're in such a "video game" from a world that defies our laws of physics? I mean after all, simulations are video games, in a way. (they're just not for entertainment)

Also 0.1 does indeed have no relevance. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand? Nobody has ever measured 0.1 to such precision as to be ruled out that a 512-bit floating point was used. You can't even measure it, due to randomness anyway. Did my entire dither post got ignored?

There is no 0.1 in 16-bit numbers either -- and yet a PCM wave can perfectly represent it with a very faint noise floor (due to random dithering). This is not disputable, it is a mathematical fact. I mean what more do you want? In the article I linked, the guy even proves it with a oscilloscope in a related video (linked from the article). (and that guy is the creator of the Vorbis codec -- so you can rest assured he knows his shit)

Yes, limited computation precision with dithering does add a certain noise floor, but we already HAVE THAT in quantum mechanics -- so if anything, such "inherent instability" (as you call it) is more proof that the computations are limited and dithered, rather than not.

I was referring to the "creator" (original point) making this world. Such Creator lives in a Universe outside our own which probably doesn't have the same laws.

That is one possibility. But as I mentioned, the more likely scenario is that the creators model the simulation based on their own daily-life experiences. Thus, the beings in the simulation do face the same or very similar physical laws as do their creators.

Also 0.1 does indeed have no relevance. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand? Nobody has ever measured 0.1 to such precision as to be ruled out that a 512-bit floating point was used. You can't even measure it, due to randomness anyway. Did my entire dither post got ignored?

Yes, I ignored your entire dither post -- just like you ignored my outcry of your "shifting the focus to something else". How come 0.1 has to be measured? I have always been talking about the inability of floating-point numbers to represent the exact value of 0.1, which has nothing to do with any measurement. How come you (and revolution) always shift the focus to something else?

You are absolutely right. "Pointing out the limitation of computing" has nothing to do with "creating simulations using supercomputers". See, you (and revolution) also ignored all those relevant links I posted.

That is one possibility. But as I mentioned, the more likely scenario is that the creators model the simulation based on their own daily-life experiences. Thus, the beings in the simulation do face the same or very similar physical laws as do their creators.

That's half-correct. Our video games (simulation especially) do, to provide similar laws or at least macro effects, but they definitely don't contain particles or atoms in the subatomic sense. I'm not saying the outside Universe is not "similar" it just doesn't function the same way (most likely) simply by extrapolating our knowledge on our own creations. It's very likely to be "similar" but not the same laws.

YONG wrote:

Yes, I ignored your entire dither post -- just like you ignored my outcry of your "shifting the focus to something else". How come 0.1 has to be measured? I have always been talking about the inability of floating-point numbers to represent the exact value of 0.1, which has nothing to do with any measurement. How come you (and revolution) always shift the focus to something else?

Huh? Because we're talking about the Universe and whether it is using such limited-precision calculations? Those appear only in measurements. It has everything to do with measurements and data.

0.1 is an idea, a perfect idealistic mathematical representation. Ideas are not real, they're not proof, and they're not evidence or data about something. At best they're just approximations. There is no evidence of 0.1 being "real" since we never measured it exactly. What do you think evidence is if not measurement or such data?!?

For example, you don't need an infinite amount of matter to think about infinity. Heck some of our math even deals with infinities. It does not prove that the Universe is infinite nor that it's feasible, that's total nonsense! (it could be but it has nothing to do with the "idea" of infinity)

So let's summarize. I said the Universe might as well be simulated by 512-bit floating point formats because they have enough precision to entail anything we've ever analyzed or will possibly analyze. So it doesn't take so much CPU power to calculate every position of a particle.

The only evidence or data we have is by measuring or collecting data from particles (such as position), which we have never measured exactly to 0.1, so I don't see how you make any sense with it.

There's no shift of subject. You just don't understand that math equations are our own approximations that are based on data and that the ONLY evidence of how the Universe truly works is measured data. Ultimately, that's what physics is all about. Equations are just a tool -- an imperfect tool. Theoretical physics is based on such equations, but it's not proof.

- you see, north korea and usa, they are cool until we started seeing crazy flashes lights,

- i thought about how to handle and manage our digital assets after we are gone,

- anything open source like filecoin, i think such concept is our future internet, in fact, wikipedia should do something like this, blockchain information storage, pay to see, get paid for submission,

- the best thing to invest and buy now is, a bunker, a food production machine, source of clean water, power and electric generator, batteries, cool machines to heal you from illness, a secure place to live and die, and yeah, lots of pdf files to read and learn,

- brainwashed human, without open mind, closed to whatever possibilities that could be possible, ignorant? stubborn? maybe,

- living in state of no longer interest, no longer dare, no longer care to question whatever they are holding,

- they probably reach the highest level form of their own growth and evolution until big changes or disasters struck them to force them reconsider their position on whatever they are holding,

- changes is how nature works, one thing that don't change is changes always happened

Despite the fact that I hate revolution's arrogant attitude, I still have to admit that I shifted the context to something else in order to achieve my "proof".

At the end of the day, our discussions just boil down to a couple of things: definition and context.

What is your definition of "real"? What context are you talking about?

Given that you have your own definition and you always try to shift the context to something else, it is kind of pointless to further our discussions on this topic. (In addition, revolution never admits his/her faults, which makes our discussions practically meaningless.)

^ I think at this point you're intentionally ignoring everything we say. I specifically said that 0.1 is an idea, an ideal representation of math, and you use ideal math to prove it. Yeah, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Here's an equally pointless proof that the Universe is infinite:

lim x->+0 1/x = oo

We have equations that give infinite results, therefore the Universe must function with infinities, seriously?

You can do anything you want with math. You can use 1 million dimensions if you want and have calculations on them. That doesn't mean it's how the Universe works or that it has anything to do with how the Universe actually works.

Data and measurements are the only proof.

For example, suppose that the Universe quantizes everything to 10^-2 meters (not true, but you get the point! it's an example, using decimal arithmetic for simplicity; plus meters are a human concept, but let's just go along with it!). So 0.01 is representable, so is 0.02, but 0.005 is not. 0.333333333333333 is also not representable exactly, and will be 0.33. (without dithering, with dithering, the last digit will fluctuate after rounding)

So far so good. Suppose our measurement systems can only measure down to 0.1. Now, you do some equations on large scales and it seems as though 1/3 is perfectly representable. After all your calculations end up something like 1111/3 = 370.33, and you say oh ok, this is how the Universe works! After all your calculations were correct for the 2 fractional digits you were interested in, but no more. You don't care of more precision for this case, so you think the Universe works like this.

Wrong. Then comes a guy who looks at quantum phenomena. He notices that everytime he tries to measure something with more precision than 0.01 steps he gets some "random" results. For example he might measure a particle as 0.01 once and then 0.02 in whatever data he is interested, randomly fluctuating. As if it's dithered in a noise floor below 0.01.

Then he tries to measure 1/3 meters and can't get more than 2 digits of precision (0.33) on his best measurement system because it fluctuates randomly between 0.33 and 0.34 everytime he measures it -- of course his measurements are anything in-between because they are imprecise, so it can be 0.3331234902345 and 0.33893202359023 or whatever else his tool uses. Basically anything in-between 0.33 and 0.34 (there are an infinite amount of numbers, you know) will be reported, but randomly.

You still think 1/3 aka 0.33333333333333... is real? WTF. This Universe clearly has very low precision. The data clearly shows that, to the best of our current knowledge, the Universe is dithered in this case to 2 fractional digits.

A Universe simulation with just 3 fractional digits fooled you here. Is that how easy you are to get fooled by a simulation?

^ I think at this point you're intentionally ignoring everything we say.

Well, not long ago a forum member said, in some other thread, that he couldn't care less what is "accepted" or not.

Following the same line of logic, I think that it is "okay" for me to ignore some of the "irrelevant" arguments. Right?

Seriously, I just want to point out a couple of things:

First, your arguments are based on one unfounded assumption: spacetime is quantized. Do you -- or scientists -- have any verifiable evidence to support the notions of Planck length and Planck time? (Last time I checked there was none.)

Second, what is wrong with my saying that 0.1 is real -- in the sense that it belongs to the set of real numbers? I don't see your mention of "circular reasoning" is relevant here. (On this point, please do not make any connection with the universe. Just explain why my saying somehow involves "circular reasoning". Thanks!)

Second, what is wrong with my saying that 0.1 is real -- in the sense that it belongs to the set of real numbers?

You said this:

YONG wrote:

My mention of 0.1 was meant to indicate the limitation of computing. To create an exact copy of the reality we are facing -- including all the microscopic phenomena like interactions between particles and quantum fluctuations, the "simulation" would have to be the reality itself.

You suggest that because 0.1 can't be represented in binary floating point form ("the limitation of computing") that somehow that means this reality as we know can't be simulated. You were also tasked with showing 0.1 in this world, but have so far failed to show that. The reason you can't show it is because 0.1 doesn't exist in this world (it's only a mathematical idea), so there is nothing in principal stopping a binary digital floating point computer from simulating this reality in all its glory if only we knew the rules and had sufficient size and computing capabilities.

You suggest that because 0.1 can't be represented in binary floating point form ("the limitation of computing") that somehow that means this reality as we know can't be simulated.

I should not even bother to respond to your lousy arguments any more given that you were unwilling to admit your fault.

However, for the common good of this message board, let me just point out your tricks once again to alert the other forum members.

Your first trick:

Did I even say that it was IMPOSSIBLE to simulate our reality? How come my words would become "somehow that means this reality as we know can't be simulated"?

My words are no different from the following quote in one of my earlier posts:

"To simulate the universe perfectly, you need a computer the size of the universe."

To have a supercomputer the size of the universe is extremely unlikely, but it is NOT impossible.

That's why I said, right from the very beginning, that it was extremely unlikely that we were living in a simulated world.

Your second trick:

Did I even say that the inability of floating-point numbers to represent 0.1 made it impossible to create a simulation of the universe? How come there was a DIRECT CAUSE-AND-EFFECT relationship between the two?

I have repeated pointed out that my mention of 0.1 was an example to illustrate the limitation of computing. We, when discussing the simulation "conjecture", should take such limitations into account.

See, someone just twisted the meaning of my words to suit his/her lousy arguments. (Of course, that arrogant forum member / mod, who even confused "photons" with "protons", will keep saying that he/she is right.)

Well, not long ago a forum member said, in some other thread, that he couldn't care less what is "accepted" or not.

That makes no sense. I was saying I couldn't care less what social norms are or whatever it is called. I don't believe in sheep mentality just because most people accept something (not just religion). I don't see what that has anything to do with what I said. You don't have to accept it because it's not a custom you have to accept. It's just logic.

YONG wrote:

First, your arguments are based on one unfounded assumption: spacetime is quantized. Do you -- or scientists -- have any verifiable evidence to support the notions of Planck length and Planck time? (Last time I checked there was none.)

You miss the point. As far as we know, yes, space (and energy) is quantized (the whole point of quantum mechanics). It doesn't mean we know everything, obviously.

But if I make the claim that a 512-bit floating point format is enough precision to calculate (and beyond) everything we have ever observed or will possibly observe, and then you claim it's not enough because it can't represent 0.1 exactly (which nobody has ever measured, that's the point) it is your burden to prove it that 0.1 even exists in the Universe or is "representable" (i.e. "real", see below). So far, with our current tools and tech, all we know fits into 512-bits (or way less, even 256-bit).

Here's a comical example:

A: "So I think that E = mc^2 is truly the relationship between mass and energy, because of data supporting this proposition within reasonable error level."
B: "Nope, the equation can't be correct as it doesn't address a specific situation"
A: "What situation is that?"
B: "It doesn't account for the invisible flying pink unicorn that nobody has ever measured."
A: ...

Replace the equation with 512-bit float representation and the invisible flying pink unicorn with "exact 0.1"

YONG wrote:

Second, what is wrong with my saying that 0.1 is real -- in the sense that it belongs to the set of real numbers?

Man, I wasn't talking about the real numbers with the word "real" I meant, real as in "how the Universe actually works"

First, your arguments are based on one unfounded assumption: spacetime is quantized. Do you -- or scientists -- have any verifiable evidence to support the notions of Planck length and Planck time? (Last time I checked there was none.)

You miss the point. As far as we know, yes, space (and energy) is quantized (the whole point of quantum mechanics).

I don't think that I miss the point. My point is simple -- there is no verifiable evidence to support the notions of Planck length and Planck time. However, you just take it as a proven fact and base your arguments on such an unfounded assumption.

A: "So I think that E = mc^2 is truly the relationship between mass and energy, because of data supporting this proposition within reasonable error level."
B: "Nope, the equation can't be correct as it doesn't address a specific situation"
A: "What situation is that?"
B: "It doesn't account for the invisible flying pink unicorn that nobody has ever measured."
A: ...

Most people don't know what an invisible flying pink unicorn is. You should use some well-known example/idea that most people can easily grasp.

I don't think that I miss the point. My point is simple -- there is no verifiable evidence to support the notions of Planck length and Planck time. However, you just take it as a proven fact and base your arguments on such an unfounded assumption.

What? Our current verifiable evidence shows the Universe is even more quantized than Planck Length. Planck Length is considered the "absolute theoretical limit" but nobody has even come close to measure something as precise as that. Which makes the argument even stronger about 512-bit floats. The Universe is probably dithered way above the theoretical limit anyway.

YONG wrote:

See, there is nothing wrong with my saying.

Like it or not, the undeniable truth is that we do not know how the universe actually works.

Your first phrase has absolutely nothing to do with the second, sorry. First one is true, in a mathematical sense (its definition of "real" numbers). Which has nothing to do with the second phrase.

We don't know how the Universe actually works, but all current evidence suggests it is quantized, including properties like energy -- and on a scale much larger than Planck Length (in terms of space). Evidence is never absolute proof, but this doesn't mean it works a different way either.

I mean, what evidence do you have that it is not quantized? You'll have to explain why Black Body radiation even works the way it does without energy being quantized, etc.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum